No, we knew that members had sat down and spoken with Russians immediately following the election and there was news that Kushner had run into a Russian banker of some sort while on business -- just like he runs into other bankers. However, if you want to talk about ACTUAL collusion, the Hillary campaign paid a man who went and solicited information directly from members of the Russian government.
Zeus posted...
So far the most damning evidence of collusion was that somebody from the Trump campaign met with a Russian ambassador on official business *after* Trump had won the election, something which his predecessors have always done. If you want evidence of anything, you've found strong evidence of a double-standard.
Zeus posted...
lolwut? If anything, his conduct has been less egregious than previous administrations. Clinton fired White House vendors -- including a travel agency -- and brought in family friends to replace them. GWB was accused of being elected based on nepotism. Obama sold ambassadorships to donors who never even visited the countries they were going to be assigned to. But sure, make shit up to undermine the presidency and advance your foreign masters' standing.
Zeus posted...
In general, the whole Russia conspiracy is laughable. It's like a stupider form of McCarthyism which, ironically enough, is being promoted by a politician named McCarthy. This has humorously enough included attempts to limit RT on the basis that it's a state-owned media outlet which has influence over the US public while, at the same time, no complaints were raised about the BBC which is pretty much in the same boat since it's also a state-owned media outlet which has influence over the US public. Granted, unlike RT, people actually pay attention to the BBC.
Zeus posted...
Because a long-standing friendship with a political candidate wouldn't influence him to make statements about that candidate's political opponent? And "controversial" is more than enough given the other facts.
Zeus posted...
Or are you just basing it on the assumption that he *might* have claimed a direct access to Putin which he never had which thereby constitutes an attempt to collude which never actually occurred and runs contrary to the central claims of the investigation? At this point, it's starting to look like people are just flinging as much shit as possible at a president they don't like so they can see what will stick.
None of which are "lies." All are either still true or were the best information available at the time. (And, for the record, the ONLY proven collusion directly tying a campaign to Russia so far is, again, the fact that Hillary's campaign paid a spy to talk to the Russian officials who provided that spy with information. Since then, there have been generic corruption charges based on bribes but *still* no collusion.) And, if anything, subsequent investigations have turned up attempts by Russia to bolster movements like BLM in the USA which, by the way, goes back to the intelligence community's original theory that Russia was just trying to disrupt the election and undermine our government... and apparently it's worked, considering that you've been influenced into undermining the government.
But pardon me for interrupting your tug and letting the slightest sound into your echo chamber. Better start building those walls ten feet taller! ---
(\/)(\/)|-| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.